--Anduril: "How many of you have actually held public office? I suspect virtually none."

--I question the relevance of your rhetorical question.

Yes, and you're completely justified in questioning it. If someone were applying at my hospital to be Chief Surgeon, but didn't seem qualified; if they were asked which peer-reviewed journals they commonly read, and couldn't even name one of them; if they greeted such questions on their competency with rambling, nonsensical replies that didn't even address the question; and if they and their supporters met any such questioning and criticism with attempts to silence the critics and questioners at any cost, without answering the questions properly? And finally, if she quit her current job as a surgeon mid-term, because of this "heat"?

I would not need to be a surgeon to start asking not only how she would have the utter gall to have asked to be Chief Surgeon, I would wonder--aloud, in the hearing of those at her present hospital, for their safety--how on earth this person got her present job, too.

Being President, and having the power over life and death over millions upon millions of people. One's qualifications should include intellectual curiosity and shrewd judgement, and coolheadedness, and grace under pressure. I do not possess enough grace under pressure, I would bet. I would bet few here do. That doesn't make me unqualified to judge whether or not someone else does, or whether or not they have these other qualities. This person ought never to have been seriously considered for any office, much less elected to one.

I bet Anduril will step right up and admit his or her logical fallacies, since soooo many Palin supporters have done so.

Let us not waste our breathe on this Palin Fallen. Her higher calling is a fat contract with F network possibly or whatever the mystery. Who cares. She's one sick puppy. Oh, that's right she likes to shoot innocent, helpless animals from flying overhead and pop, pop. If kids kill innocent animals we watch those children and sure enough they go on murdering other innocents. We'd better keep an eye on the sickie Palin. And she has no clue 'cause she's been lying all her life and the truth isn't in her.

Ok, I admit it for all us girlie girls. We are all just jealous because David Letterman fantazises about Palin and not us. Okay, I feel so much better now that I have that off my bosum(sp?). BUT Letterman couldn't get no satisfaction (the same ole fantasy gets boring and won't work it's magic after awhile) so what he did next was humiliate Palin. That she did not deserve. But more than a women scorned is a Letterman unable to get satisfaction so humiliation got him off and it should have been off the air.

:D) Happy fourth of July, MissClarity!

Anderson Cooper interviewed Sarah Palin's press agent, who was in New York City and seemed to be blindsided by Palin's sudden announcement of her resignation.

The agent is still on the payroll, though, and answered Cooper's questions with as much coherence and helpfulness as you might expect from somebody who is employed by Palin.

Cooper repeatedly asked why Palin is painting her resignation as "doing what's best for Alaska." The press agent responded by referring to the basketball analogy Palin used in the speech. Cooper said, "I don't understand sports," and the press agent sort of gave up, explaining that now Palin is free to do useful things outside of government. When asked what some of those useful things might be, the press agent said, "Oh, EVERYTHING!"

My favorite part followed when she said, "The world is literally Sarah Palin's oyster."

Ha ha. Literally!

We all should be very concerned. What this means is that at any moment, Sarah Palin will open the world, and suck it down her gullet, possibly as an aphrodesiac.

Calif Mike: "Joan may not directly incite the hatred among her readers, but she never restrains them, either. She could say once in a while something like that: “C’mon guys, don’t go overboard!” Correct me, if I am wrong, but she never did it."

It's interesting to see people attempt to tell Joan Walsh what she must do. Of course, instead of criticizing Walsh for not doing precisely what you personally imagine she ought to do, you could simply make your own case for why people shouldn't go overboard. But I suppose that wouldn't give you the opportunity to chastise Walsh...

Calif Mike: "People tend to blame and/or hate somebody else rather than themselves. An example that you have chosen proves that. Don’t you think that at least some of the [Bernie Madoff] investors should hate themselves for being too gullible or too greedy?"

Don't think nobody notices that you have side-stepped the original point here, which was a good one. That point is that oftentimes people do have legitimate reasons for being angry, as there actually are injustices and abuses in this world.

Instead of acknowledging a decent point, you offer an irrelevant rebuttal that comes down to blaming the victims. Nice job, considering that you keep advocating civil discourse. The question you now bring up is: What good is civil discourse if it isn't also honest discourse? I ask this same question both of you and of Readerreader. Essentially you want to spew illogical nonsense and have nobody call you on it.

Msakel: "Only an IDIOT would use Harry & Louise misrepresentations for Obama's slanderous Campaign purposes and not expect a "Scolding Mother" response of justifiable anger from Clinton!"

Wow, so you're still bitter over the primaries from 1 1/2 years ago? Really? Did you know that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton made up with each other, and that Clinton is now serving in a critical high-level post in Obama's administration? Just wondering...

Regarding the actual conflict you speak of, there are two separate issues here: (1) Whether that local campaign brochure crossed an ethical line that Clinton's campaign had never crossed; (2) Whether Clinton's response was not over-the-top and designed to serve a tactical purpose.

I am not particularly interested in debating #1 above, as I don't think it's relevant to your original assertions about Palin and Clinton being mistreated due to sexist motives. But if I were to debate it, I would challenge you to deny that Clinton's campaign had never crossed any lines. (Warning: A denial likely would make you look mighty foolish.)

Regarding #2 above, it was obvious to anybody paying attention to the primary battle that Hillary Clinton was trying multiple approaches to attack her opponent. She had just attempted (and failed) to turn a weak charge of plagiarism into a debate zinger, as well as several other approaches that, in retrospect, mostly proved to be ineffective.

Your claim that Hillary Clinton had no other options than to respond with a "scolding mother"-style tirade seems to me an insult to Clinton, as if you don't think she's capable of controlling herself. It also seems an admission that I have a point, since you've made no attempt to challenge the accuracy of Jack Cafferty's characterization.